Monthly Archives: December 2023

Is Presidential TV Ad Spending Really Idiotic, Like Vivek Ramaswamy Says?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and poking around Xitter, when I came across this post on David Axelrod’s feed addressing the latest nonsense from Vivek Ramasmarmy – sorry, Ramaswamy.

Two questions for you, Doc – is presidential TV ad spending more idiotic than Vivek Ramaswamy? Or is it vice versa?

– On the Spot

Dear OtS,

This one looks like a photo finish, yeah?

Let’s start with Vivek Ramaswamy’s X-clusion of TV spots from his primary campaign.

Given that Ramaswamy spent $200,000 on TV ads during the first half of December, as NPR’s Ashley Lopez reported, presumably he’s had some kind of IQ boost in the past few weeks. Regardless, his campaign told NPR it hasn’t entirely stopped spending on ads.

“Our spending levels haven’t changed—we’re just following the data,” said campaign spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin. “We are focused on bringing out the voters we’ve identified—best way to reach them is using addressable advertising, mail, text, live calls and doors to communicate with our voters on Vivek’s vision for America, making their plan to caucus and turning them out.”

Yeah – that and going to six Iowa Pizza Ranches in one day might actually get you within 40 points of Donald Trump. Or maybe not, considering that some – like the New Republic’s Jason Linkins – think you might not even make it to caucus night.

As for how idiotic presidential TV ad spending in general might be, it certainly hasn’t paid off for the super PACs that have dropped tens of millions of dollars touting presidential primary hopefuls, as The Bulwark’s Tim Miller has painstakingly documented.

The Super PACs Are Worthless. Donors Should Stop Torching Their Cash.

SUPER PACS FOR SEVERAL GOP CANDIDATES challenging Donald Trump have raised hundreds of millions of dollars to help fund efforts to displace him as the party’s nominee—and they have absolutely nothing to show for it.

No progress. No signs of life. No movement. Nada.

The impotence of the super PAC efforts is an all-the-more-inviting target for ridicule when you consider that this entire strategic approach was discredited in the 2016 and 2020 presidential races. (I can speak from firsthand Jeb! experience about the law of diminishing returns on super PAC dollars.)

Case in point: The pro-DeSantis super PAC Nevar Back Down, whose $25 million worth of ads have gone over like the metric system, rocketing the Florida governor from over 30% in the national polls to 11.7% in ten short months.

So yeah, some presidential ad spending is in fact idiotic. But that doesn’t make Vivek Ramaswamy any smarter.

Could a Never Trump PAC’s TV Spot Hold ‘Dictator Donald’ Accountable?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and reading Politico Playbook, when I came across this item about a new ad campaign highlighting Donald Trump’s bromance with authoritarian figures past and present.

The Republican Accountability PAC is rolling out a six-figure ad campaign to take Trump to task, titled “Dictator Donald,” hitting the former president for his recent comment that he wouldn’t be a dictator if he returns to the White House “except for Day One.” The 60-second ad compares Trump to the likes of BENITO MUSSOLINI, HUGO CHÁVEZ, AUGUSTO PINOCHET and Hungarian PM VIKTOR ORBÁN.

In your home for the holidays: The ad will begin running nationally today on CNN and MSNBC. It will also be shown on the Hallmark Channel and during TBS’ “A Christmas Story” marathon in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

That’s some Murderers’ Row Trump is being compared to, eh, Doc? Think the spot might work?

– Christmas Jeer

Dear CJ,

So you’re sitting there watching Catch Me If You Claus when this commercial pops onto your big-screen TV.

Talk about the Ghoul of Christmas Future, eh?

As for how effective the Republican Accountability PAC ad might be, the spot has gotten 164,000 views and 706 comments on YouTube in 48 hours, along with a smattering of press coverage about the group’s six-figure ad buy. (Here’s a list of their donors, via OpenSecrets.)

Then again, anti-Trump ads generally face an uphill battle, as New York Times reporter Jonathan Swan noted several months ago.

A well-funded group of anti-Trump conservatives has sent its donors a remarkably candid memo that reveals how resilient former President Donald J. Trump has been against millions of dollars of negative ads the group deployed against him in two early-voting states.

The political action committee, called Win It Back, has close ties to the influential fiscally conservative group Club for Growth. It has already spent more than $4 million trying to lower Mr. Trump’s support among Republican voters in Iowa and nearly $2 million more trying to damage him in South Carolina.

But in the memo — dated Thursday and obtained by The New York Times — the head of Win It Back PAC, David McIntosh, acknowledges to donors that after extensive testing of more than 40 anti-Trump television ads, “all attempts to undermine his conservative credentials on specific issues were ineffective.”

Of course, an ad campaign depicting Donald Trump as a five-and-dime dictator could conceivably be more effective than accusing him of failing to build a wall at the southern border. And yet . . .

“Even when you show video to Republican primary voters — with complete context — of President Trump saying something otherwise objectionable to primary voters, they find a way to rationalize and dismiss it,” Mr. McIntosh states in the “key learnings” section of the memo.

Regardless, the Republican Accountability PAC ad is a good start.  Let a thousand followers bloom, yeah?

Aren’t the Chris Christie Super PAC Ads Actually Telling It Like It Isn’t?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and poking around Politico, when I came across Alex Isenstadt’s piece about Chris Christie kneecapping Nikki Haley in the New Hampshire presidential primary.

Chris Christie has singularly devoted his presidential campaign to tearing down Donald Trump.

But with the start of the primaries just a few weeks away, some top Republicans in New Hampshire say Christie is now positioned to help pave the way for Trump’s nomination by siphoning votes away from Nikki Haley, Trump’s closest-polling competitor in the state.

“Chris Christie is a monumental problem for Nikki Haley,” said Mike Dennehy, a former Republican National committeeman from New Hampshire who is neutral in the race. “They are both currently splitting the Independent vote, and Haley desperately needs those votes if she is to have a chance of knocking off Trump in New Hampshire.”

Drive Haley nuts graf: “Christie advisers said no one has asked the candidate to drop out. And there is no indication he is slowing down either. Tell It Like It Is PAC, a pro-Christie outside group, is running a $3.5 million TV advertising campaign in New Hampshire.”

Three and a half million to prop up a candidate the majority of Republican primary voters totally hate? They’d do better setting their money on fire and posting the video to YouTube. That would probably have a more lasting impact, don’t you think, Doc?

– Fired Up

Dear FU,

Chris Christie is the guest who’s really fun and entertaining until he refuses to leave the dinner party when the clock strikes midnight. Instead, he just keeps banging on about himself, as this press release from the pro-Christie PAC indicates.

With the New Hampshire primary less than six weeks away, and on the heels of a winning debate performance, Tell It Like It Is PAC launched its largest paid media campaign of the cycle in New Hampshire: $3.5 million dollars across broadcast, cable, statewide digital and radio.

Entitled “Unacceptable,” the :30 second spot . . . focuses on not only core policy issues important to New Hampshire voters (inflation and immigration), but also reminds voters of the bold distinction between Governor Christie and the other candidates in the race: the willingness to tell the truth about former President Donald Trump.

Here’s the spot.

Christie might in fact be “the only candidate with the courage to tell the truth and the experience to get it done,” but whatever “it” is most certainly does not include winning New Hampshire, never mind the GOP presidential nomination.

Not with numbers like these (via FiveThirtyEight) in this month’s poll from Saint Anselm College Survey Center . . .

. . . or these from American Research Group (which gets a C+ rating at FiveThirtyEight).

Roll your own from those polls. As for actually telling it like it is, listen to The Bulwark’s publisher Sarah Longwell on The Focus Group Podcast (around 18:19).

When the New York Times called me recently for a story and it was like, lots of people are saying Christie should drop out and like, why don’t you think he is or whatever. And I was like, I got I got all mad and I was like, because time is a flat circle. And everybody insists on playing out the 2016 primary beat for beat exactly like it was back then. And Chris Christie needs to drop out instead of doing what he did to Marco Rubio . . .

He’s just hurting Nikki now. Anything he does, it’s not helping her. I don’t know what he thinks he’s doing. It’s time. It’s time, buddy. Good job. I appreciate what you’ve done, but you’ve got to show now that it is more than your ego at work here and you are ready to actually be helpful to some of these other candidates.

Question is, does Chris Christie have the courage to get that done? Or will he just keep telling it like it isn’t.

Is Donald Trump Really Marketing Tiny Pieces of His Mugshot Suit?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and listening to The Bulwark’s Sarah Longwell and Jonathan V. Last on The Secret Podcast, when JVL started talking about Donald Trump’s latest NFT (non-fungible token) grift.

Donald Trump this week announced a new wave of his NFTs, and these are the Mugshot series.

Hmm where all of the pictures have are, you know riffing off of his mugshot glare Yeah, and if you buy a hundred of them, which I believe is $10,000 worth so if you if you buy $10,000 worth of these you will also get a Physical trading card like a like a baseball card here.

Seriously, Doc – ten grand for a Trump trading card? Please tell me that is . . . 

– Not Freaking True

Dear NFT,

Truer than anything Donald Trump ever says, I’m sorry to report.

Start with Trump’s mug shot, taken last summer in a Georgia courthouse.

That was just raw material, though, as Vanessa Friedman wrote in the New York Times.

[T]his week, NFT INT, the official licensee of the Trump name and image for digital trading cards, began selling a special “Mugshot Edition” NFT set that includes, for a certain few willing to buy the whole thing, pieces of the blue suit and red tie Mr. Trump wore in the photo.

Or, as the NFT INT website calls the garment, “The most historically significant artifact in American history.”

The goods, for those of you keeping score at home.

That would be what’s known in the business as a “relic card” – like a piece of the True Cross relic, which plays nicely into the whole Orange Jesus thing. The Times piece notes that there are “enough tiny suit pieces for 2,024 buyers.” Some coincidence, eh?

The Doc’s diagnosis: This is just the latest indication that everything in Donald Trump’s life is transactional, right down to the clothes off his back.

Don’t even wanna know what might be next.

Can a GOP Congressman Really Use Taxpayer $$$ to Ad-tack Joe Biden?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads, 

There I was, minding my own business and scrolling through Punchbowl News AM, when I came across this item from reporter Max Cohen about a new TV spot attacking Joe Biden and his family.

Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas) is running a campaign ad touting his impeachment work through his spot on the House Oversight Committee.

Fallon says in the ad that the panel is “leading the charge to investigate Hunter Biden, the Biden family and the alleged payments they received from foreign countries.” It’s an interesting example of how lawmakers are messaging on the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden back home. Even more interesting — this ad was paid for with taxpayer money, not campaign dollars.

What the hell, Doc – I have to pony up for this guy’s political benefit? No way I ever signed up for that.

– Fallon Angles

Dear FA,

Seems crazy, right? Your tax dollars at work promoting Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Taxes) and the GOP’s evidence-free impeachment inquiry, an endeavor so ham-handed it belongs in a Hormel processing plant.

Here’s what you bought and paid for.

Two things of note in this TV spot spewing unfounded allegations against Joe Biden and his family: 1) Fallon is “sick and tired of politicians thinking that they’re above the law,” and 2) The ad is “Paid for by Official Funds Authorized by the House of Representatives.”

Then again, maybe not so authorized.

Guidelines from the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Ethics include a General Prohibition Against Using Official Resources for Campaign or Political Purposes: “Official resources of the House must, as a general rule, be used for the performance of official business of the House, and hence those resources may not be used for campaign or political purposes.”

Campaign or political  purposes are absolutely the objective of Fallon’s TV spot, given that he’s running for reelection to the House after launching a bid for Texas Senate that lasted all of 24 hours and two Come-to-Jesus conversations, as the Texas Tribute noted.

The Doc’s diagnosis: Pat Fallon is hardly a guy you’d look to for clear-eyed, resolute guidance on ethical issues. He should at least have the decency not to use taxpayer funds to demonstrate that.

Why Is Nikki Haley Barely Nicking Donald Trump in Her First Iowa TV Spot?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and paging through the Weekend Wall Street Journal, when I came across this interview with Nikki Haley based on a sit-down the former South Carolina governor and U.N. Ambassador in the Trump administration had with the Journal’s editorial board.

Drove-me-nuts graf:

She is careful to give her former boss his due: “I think President Trump was the right president at the right time,” she says. “I really do.” But “chaos follows him wherever he goes. And every one of you knows I’m right.” She scans the room. “When the world is on fire and our country is completely distracted, we can’t continue down this chaotic path.”

Really? That’s her brief for replacing the guy who’s ahead of her by 50 points in polls and 91 felony counts in courts of law? He’s a chaos magnet? What the hell, Doc.

– Nik-Pikki

Dear NP,

Yeah, you’re not the only one eye-rolling about Haley’s rolling over for Trump. Here’s what The Bulwark’s Will Saletan wrote on Substack the other day.

Have you heard Nikki Haley’s pathetically weak description of Trump’s behavior? She says “rightly or wrongly, chaos follows him.” In today’s @The Bulwark podcast, @Charlie Sykes mocks her evasive language. “It’s a little bit like saying, ‘You know, wherever Jeffrey Dahmer goes, people are found dead.'” lnk.thebulwark.com/47Mq34r

Haley is just as mealy-mouthed in her first Iowa TV spot.

“A president must have moral clarity,” she says, “and know the difference between good and evil. Today, China, Russia, and Iran are advancing . . .”

And etc.

Oh, wait – Haley also says, “it’s time for a new generation of conservative leadership. We have to leave behind the chaos and drama of the past, and strengthen our country, our pride, and our purpose.”

The Doc believes that pitch was far more forceful in the original Esperanto.

To call Haley’s alleged presidential primary campaign against Donald Trump a pillow-fight is an insult to pajama parties worldwide.

And yet . . .

Another Bulwark stalwart, Jonathan V. Last, presented two theories of the case in his Triad newsletter: “Theory #1: You attack Trump in order to take his voters from him . . . Theory #2: If you attack Trump then you can’t get a hearing from Republican voters.”

The first gambit represents a gargantuan task, likely requiring Haley to go after Trump hammer and tongue. Last says that might be possible, but makes this “utilitarian case” for the second approach.

The only way to have a chance to beat Trump is to pretend that he’s fine and to pledge to support him at some point down the road. The act of telling the truth about Trump, or saying that you might not support him in the future, disqualifies you in the minds of Republican voters.

And so Haley has to play it this way in order to have even a 1-in-100 chance.

Haley doubled down on her campaign of least resistance this weekend in an interview with ABC News Live Prime anchor Linsey Davis.

“It’s not about fitness. I think he’s fit to be president. It’s ‘Should he be president?’ I don’t think he should be president. I thought he was the right president at the right time,” said Haley.

“We’ve got to look at the issues that we’re dealing with, coming forward with new solutions, not focusing on negativity and baggage of the past. So it’s not about being fit. It’s just I don’t think he’s the right person to be president,” she added.

The Doc’s diagnosis: If Nikki Haley truly believes the Cheeto-in-Chief is fit to be president, then she manifestly is not.

Are the GOP’s A.I.-Generated Digital Ads More a) Deceptive or b) Dangerous?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and scrolling through Punchbowl News AM (sorry – can only afford the free edition), when I came across this item about the National Republican Congressional Committee plumbing new depths of negative advertising.

The NRCC is launching a digital ad campaign featuring artificial intelligence-created images of national parks “overrun with illegal immigrants.” The GOP messaging takes aim at a number of vulnerable House Democrats who voted against a Republican resolution last week that would bar federal agencies from using funds to house migrants.

The resolution, sponsored by Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.), would affect the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service.

So, wait – the national parks are not overrun with illegal immigrants, but the NRCC is showing that they are . . . with doctored video? 

– Doctor, My A.I.s

Dear A-I-I,

Yeah, talk about creating your own reality.

The Punchbowl News piece cites two A.I.-generated ads, one depicting Acadia National Park, represented by Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), the other featuring Glacier Bay National Park, which is in Rep. Mary Peltola’s (D-Alaska) district.

Unfortunately, neither of those links work. But this one for an NRCC video does.

The Doc will let the New Republic’s Tori Otten pick it up from here.

The National Republican Congressional Committee released a wildly xenophobic ad on Monday, depicting several national parks overrun with immigrants.

The ad used artificial intelligence to create images of different national parks in the style of vintage travel posters. The parks, which include the Grand Canyon and the National Mall, are filled with tents that supposedly belong to undocumented immigrants.

“More crime. Less tourism. No beauty,” the ad says. “Democrats’ National Parks.”

Except . . .”not only is the ad deeply xenophobic, it’s also false. A study released in July by a team of economists from Stanford University found that immigration has not caused crime rates to increase in 140 years.”

The TNR piece calls the ad’s fake images “unhinged.”

The Doc calls it business as usual from now on.